
are E3t¥- 



Book 



I 



SPEECH 



•r 






MR. BUCHANAN, OF PENNSYLVANIA, 



RESOLUTION OF COL. BENTON, 



EXPUNGE FROM THK JOURNAL OF THE SENATE, 



- 



RESOLUTION OF THE TWKNTF-EIGHT OF MARCH. 1WM. 



Delivered in the Senate of the U. S. January 16, 1857. 



WASHINGTON i 

TFISTttl IT THE DtOBK nfPirT.. 

13:17. 



■ 7 






SPEECH. 



In (lit- Senate of the United Slate:-, Monday, January 
16, 1837 — Upon the resolution offered by Col. 
Ben n souri, to expunge from the Jour- 

nals of the Sena!;', the resolution of the 28th day 
of March, 1834, condemning President Jackson, 
by drawing ' ik lines ai iund the same, and 
writi fa thereof, the words " Ex- 

PCKl ' IF THE SeNAT] ■ DAY 

Of , IX THE VKAil OK OUR LORD 1837." 

After Mr. On had resumed his seat, Mr. 
■-.' >WS: 
ter the able • ; ' itdis- 

play of the £ ator'l m Kentucky, l V .■'< lay,) 
i I h ig so i 

i < 
the 
But I 
rican topi 

ustiiy Hie which I inten 

to 

A : quest 

if e 1 

St cussioh. Th 

■ci- 
sioii 

the i h this Goverh- 

■ 
Sena 
face 

a ■. 

pre i . ■ I . r we coa- 

sidi r the e 

illi 
i it was di 
feel • : 

im | 

facl 
h:r. . and unco 

the I ] ! I am 

the ji 

tio it, [o 

[ ] 
i 
■ 
i I respeel [si 



proceed no farther than the occasion demands, and 
will, therefore, justify. 

Who was the President of the United States, 
against whom this sentence has been pronounced? 
Andrew Jackson — a name which every American 
mother, after the party strife which agitato s us for 
the present moment shall have passed away, will, 
during all the generations which this Republic is 
destined to endure, teach her infant to lisp with 
that of the venerated name of Washington. Th 
one was the founder, the other the prese; 
es of his conn!!',-. 
If President Jackson has been guilty of vii il 
the Constitution of the United States, let imp 
in :i : i ! urse. I admit that il is no j 

• l foi ich a i - that his long life hi 

lished b; i of disin patri it- 

than that of an, ' m< rican citizen m 

the 1 neisty ofhishi 
■ i i nsharel on e pro; 
t hi ii it is no justi- 

t that I in the 

lie b I I ■ itr-f I d. 

lefchis nai : be "damned • eyejr- 
faa ■ " with Ihi se of Ca sar and of 1- 

':'. on 1 l] h; . ' : h pi re ai cl i ai i 
etu '■■'.' ift.t< i do !..:: 
he foul ' ■ haves 

haracter. ] 
,: ■ i e v in doubt as to wl t ma 
f h co] Qtry. In anj ■ 
i | i vale life, 
we, the i. : ufil r his ofli I I ire, vi it! mt, 

!..,,. said ol n 
: i of othei ! leni tl 

aid thus much i '< t he 

meridian of h power. 

I , 'H 

■ ful fe linj ■ ' 
i i man who ha i .1 ae so much i 
■ : i M'l ei , for mj 

. hani 

istgreal cl ange if* I i i I I • 
ucce : . [f] 

J iffe 

i city on this floor, i speak 
■.: i sman an I Ami 



4 



and I feel proud now to have the opportunity of 
raising my voice in his defence. 

On the 28th day of March, 1834, the Senate of 
the United States resolved, "that the President, in the 
1 tte Executive proceedings, in relation to the public 
revenue, has assumed upon himself authority and 
power not conferred by the Constitution and laws, 
bul : i en gation of both." 

In discussing this subject, I shall undertake to 
prove, first, that this resolution is unjust; secondly, 
: lal it is unconstitutional; and in the last place, that 
it ought tp b( i spunged from our journals, in the 
manner proposed by the Senator from Missouri, 
(Mr. Benton.) 

First, then, it is unjust. On this branch of the 
subject I had intended to confine myself to a bare 
expression of myown decided opinion. This point 
lias been so often and so ably discussed, that it is 
impossible ft r me to cast any new light upon it. 
But as it is my intention to follow the footsteps of 
the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Clay,) wherever 
they may lead, 1 must again treadthe ground. which 
has been so often trodden. As the Senator, how- 
ever, has confined himself to a mere passing re- 
ferent to the topics which this head presents, I 
shall, in this particular, follow his example. 

Although the resolution condemning the Presi- 
dent is pague and general in its terms, yet we all 
know that it was founded upon his removal of the 
public deposites from the Bank of the United Slates. 
The Senator from Kentucky has contended that this 
act was a violation of law. And why? Because, 
says he, it is well known that the public money 
was secure in dial institution; and by its charter 
the pubiic deposites could not be removed from it, 
unless under a just apprehension that they were in 
danger. Now, sir, 1 admit that if the President 
had no right to remove these deposites, except foi 
thi sole reason that their safety was in danger, the 
Senator has established his position. But what is 
the fact? Was the Government thus restricted by 
the terms of the bank charter? I answer, no. Such 
;i limitation is no where to be found in it. Let me 
read the sixteenth section, which is the only one re- 
lating to the subject. It enacts, "that the deposites 
o.'iho money of the United States, in places in 
which the said bank and branches thereof may be 
established, shall he made in said hank or branches 
thereof, unless tht Secretary of the Treasury shall at 
tnui time oikeribise order and direct; in which case 
the Secretary of the Treasury shall immediately lay 
betpfe Congress, if in session, and, if not, immedi- 
ately ; f! i' i 1 ' • commencement of the next session, 
the reasons of such order or direction." 

i noi die authority thus conferred upon the Sec- 
i.i.:. o1 the Treasury as broad and as ample as 
the English ' tnguage will admit? Where is the li- 
mftation, where the restriction.' One mighl have 
supposed from the argument of the Senatpr from 
keiiim kyj that the charter restricted the Secretary 
ofthe Treasury from removing the deposites, un- 
less he believed them to bi insecure in the Bank of 
the I aited stales bin the language of the law it- 
self complete!} refutes his argument. They were 
to remain in the Bank of the United States, "un- 
Itss tlte Secretory of the Treasury shall at any time 
ot/icncisi? enter aijd rfirect." 

The sole limitation upon the discretion of that 



officer was his immediate and direct responsibility 
to Congress. To us he was bound to render his 
reasons for removing the deposites. We, and we 
alone, are constituted the judges as to the sufficien- 
cy of thes' reasons. 

It would he an easy task to prove that the au- 
thors of the bank charter acted wisely in nol limit- 
ing the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury 
over tic 1 deposites to the single case of their appre- 
hended insecurity. We may imagine many other 
reasons which would have rendered their removal 
both wise and expedient. But I forbear; especi- 
cially as the case now before the Senate presents 
as striking an illustration of this proposition as I 
could possibly imagine. Upon what principle, 
then, do I justify the removal of the deposites? 

The Bank of the United States had determined 
to apply for a recharler at the session of Congress 
immediately preceding the last Presidential elec- 
tion. Preparatory to this application, and whilst 
ii was pending, in the short space of sixteen mi mths, 
it had increased its loans more than §28,000,000. 
They rose from forty-two millions to seventy millions 
between the last of December, 1830, and the fust 
of May, 1832. Whilst this boasted ngulatorof 
the currency was thus expanding its discounts, all 
the local banks followed the example. The im- 
pulse of self-interest urged them to pursue this 
•ourse. A delusive prosperity was lints spread 
over the land. Money, every where, became plen- 
ty. The bank was regarded as the beneficent pa- 
rent, who was pouring her money out into the laps 
o{' her children. She thought herself wise and 
provident in thus rendering herself popular. The 
recharter passed both Houses of Congress by tri- 
umphant majorities. But then came "(he frost, 
the hilling frost." It was not so easy to propitiate 
"the Old Roman. 1 ' Although he well knew the 
power and influence 'which the bank could exert 
against him at the then approaching Presidential 
election, he cast such considerations to the winds, 
lb vetoed the hill, and in the most solemn manner 
placed himself for trial upon this question before 
the American people. 

From that moment the faith of many of his for- 
mer friends began to grow cold. The bank opi nly 
took the field against his re-election. It expended 
large sums in subsidizing editors, and in circulating 
pamphlets, and papers, and speeches, throughout 
the Union, calculated to inflame the public mind 
against the President. I merely glance at these 
things. 

Let us pause for a single moment to consider the 
consequences of such conduct. What right had 
the bank, as a corporation, to enter the arena of 
politics fur the purpose of defending itself, and at- 
tacking the President.' Whilst 1 freely admit that 
each individual stockholder possessed the same 
rights, in this respect, as every other American 
citizen, I pray yon to consider what a dangerous pre- 
cedent the bank has thus established. Our banks 
now number nearh a thousand, and our other char- 
.,, J ,./ titutiont; are almost innumerable. If all 
< ■ . e corporations are to be justified in using their 
irpi rati funds for the purpi se of infJuem it g elec- 
tions: of < levating their political friends, and crush- 
in:; then political Iocs, our condition is truly de- 
plorable. We shall thus introduce into the State 



a new, a dangerous, and an alarming power, the 
effects of which no tnari can anticipate. Watch- 
ful jealousy is the price which a free people must 
e\er pay for their liberties; and this j< a on j should 
beAr ; -eyed in watching the political mi rements 
of corporations. 

After the bank had been defeated in the P 
1 election, il adopted a new course of ; 
What it had been unable to accomplish by makii 
money plenty, it determined it would wrest from 
the sufferings of the people by making monej r 
scarce. Pressure and panic then became lis 'wea- 
pons; and with these it was determined, if possible, 
to extort a recharter from the American pi ople. It 
commenced this warfsr< upon the interests of the 
country about the first of August, L833. * ; i wo 
short months it decreased its loans more than four 
millions of dollars, whilst the deposites of the Go- 
mernmenl with it had increased, during the same 
period, two millions and a qua ter. 1 S] ak in 
round nun ft wes then in the acl of red 

its disi '•• at the rate of two millions of dollars 
per m 

The State banks had expanded their loans with 
the form.?] expansion of the Bank of the I il 
States. It now became necessary to contract them. 
The seven si presst re began to be felt evi t"j here. 
Had the Bank of the United States been per 
a short lime longer to proceed in this course, 
- tied as i i h ith the millions of the ( fovern 
which il held on deposite, a scene of almost nn s 
sal ban ruptej and insolvency musl havebeenpre- 

ci mmercial cities. It thu: hec 
absolu - try for the Presidenl eithi i I • di - 

prive the bank of the public deposites, as the 

the State hanks, and thr< ti : : 
. from tl se impending e ils, or 
cab " l a and :ei1 ipreading ruin hroi 

out ih.- land. Il wi necessary for him to adi I : 
pel purpo »re renting a unr salde- 

range! ■ I icy, ■] gener il sai 

pro]-. .] table conseqi 

chart astitatii a. 

By t! ioval of 1 isites he sti uck a blow 

againsl the bank' from w"hich it has never 

e club of Hercules with 
he slev ra. This was the master str 

which he prostrated I :' 

Amerii i tieve to ha . e be □ irruptand 

a oorri on. Por thi 

justiii he etei ial gratitude 

ooonti ■ ■ in i hi i; 

but thi le 1 nited Sti ledhim 

as a de 

it is y tl Qatoi 

that th "'. by i mo ring the de] 

the! 1 1 nited Stati •. u lited in ii: 

i' of the parse of the nation with 
that ol ■-. 1 think i 1 is nol diflicuH to an- 

swer th "i ; . What was ti of the 

public il '■> d been n idfrom thi 

Bail - under its charter, for ihe 

cause which the Senator him sell d ifiable. 

Why, it il . ■•■■ I th i) hi rebe nirn icdiatelj mil- 
ted to th ' ip of chose laws under which I 
had be in protected 1 - n ■ the Bank of the United 
States was called into existence. Such w is the 
present case. In regard lo th;s point, no matter 



whether the cause of removal were .'. ■ 
not, the moment the d "■'■' re- 

niove l they became subject to the preexisting laws, 
and not lo the arl u4ary * ill of the 1 lent, 

The Senator from Kentucky hi ■'■ ''-■''' 

the President violated'the Con on a ilaws, 

by dismissing Mr. Diiane froin offici I '■ 

would not remove the deposites; and 1 . ■ , \ 
Mr. Taney to accomplish this purpose. I si 
discuss at any length the powi . > i rei ioval. ft is 
now too late in the day to question it. That the Ex- 
ecutive possesses this power was d icided by the •' 
I ' i ;ress. It has often since bei a d la id 

decided in the same manner, and il ' a exer- 

cised by every President of the Uniti I Stat . The 
President is bound bj the Constituti m to "take c ire 
that the laws be faithfully executed." If he. cat not 
ren ove his executive officers, it [s impossible thai 
he can perform (his duty. Every inferior office] 
rnigl I set up for himself; might violal 
the country, and put him at •' whilst he 

would remain perfectly powerless,. He could not 
arrest their career. A foreign,, mini bele- 

tj ing and disj . acing the nation al r I < ithout 
power to recall him until the ns tit of 

the Senate. This construction of the Constil lion 
invoh es i o many dangers an ' • ■ 
tl al il could not be maintain' d for a , even 

1 re had nor been a cbnstanl prai ti ■ ; 

of almost half a century. 

But it is contended by the Senator thai : : - ■ •- 
cretary of the Treasury is a sort of indep hdenl 
power in the Stale, and is reli I from the i on- 
trol of ihe Executive. And whj ause 

he is directed by law lo make his ant in 

> ss and n il to the Presi : <' it. ' this ] osition 

;orrect, then it necessarily, follow: thai the Ex- 
ecutive is released from the oblige on of taking 
care that the numei a and im] t'anl ■ of G i- 
gj. ess regulating :' • fiscal concern; o the cout ry 
shall be faithfully executed. 1 

■ j is thus made independ 
Whal would be the position of thi i 
such .' c instruction of the Cot [Jaws, it 

would be verj difii :ull to decide, ind ! '■ .. n- 
derful tfansfo lationof.his char; 

the i n cit ■; that < h ive by 

. | i | | i , ke an ai t to them! 

ponsible to 

for the faithful execution rf -.■ t ' I id. if the 

pre enl or i ny othei Presidenl should prove h- 

! lohishigh ' the presenl : - 

Ii - 11 n hich has b< i said, ' 

. , infl ct condig 
i upon him, in the mi I i poini ' •■ 
■ ■■ 

! have now rr'tyed al the roat i 

ituti dpowei of the Sen il : i do] the re- 
solution ' ' ' rch, i !34. I m con 

es no such j j 

my purpose to e tabli >h this | I i. Th 
m on this poinl musl -' 
' swer to the n\\> ;tion, I »oes thi i lution 
in imp ach ible charge againsl th 

.1 trust I shall di nonstrate thai the I 
\ ilated iis constimtional duty in pr 
condemn him in this manneh ! shall again read 
' the reso uiion: 



"Resofaed, That the President, in the late Execu- 
tive proceedings in relation to the public revenue, has 
assumed upon himself authority and power not con- 
ferred by the Constitution and laws, but in deroga- 
tion of both." 

This language is brief and comprehensive. It 
comes at once to the point. It bears a striking im- 
press of the character of the Senator from Ken- 
tucky. Docs it charge an impeachable offence 
against the President? 

The fourth section of the second article of the 
Constitution declares that "the President, Vice Presi- 
dent, and all civil officers of the United Slates, shall 
be removed from office on impeachment for, and 
conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes 
and misdemeanors." 

It has been contended that this condemnatory 
resolution contains no impeachable offence, be- 
• it charges no criminal intention against the 
Pn sid nt: and I admit that it does not attribute to 
. try corrupt motive in express words. Is this suf- 
ficient I > convince the judgment of any : ; 
man that none such was intended ? Let its, for a 
few moments, examine this proposition. If it be 
well founded, the Senate may for ever hereafter 
; the power of trying, condemning, and de- 
? any officer of the Government, without 
• ■ him the slightest opportunity of being 

heard in lis defence. They may thus abuse then- 
power, and prostrate any object of their vengeance. 
fl "i s we have now ma.de the discovery, that the 
Senate are authorized to exert this tremendous 
power — that they may thus assume to themselves 

• ffice both of accuser and of judge, provided 
i 'rent contains no express allegation of a 

ct intention. The President, or any officer 

of the Government, may be denounced by the Se- 
nate as a violator of the Constitution of his coun- 
try, — as derelict in the peformance of his public 
. provided there be no express imputation of 
an improper motive. The characters of men v hosi 
reputation is dearer to them than their lives may 
thu • be destroyed* They may be held up to public 
exi xati m by the omission of a few formal words. 
a mation of the Senate carries with it 
such a moral power, that perhaps there is no 
man in the United Suites, except Andrew 
Jai ksow, who could have resist.-:! its force. No, 
sir: such an argument can never command convic- 
tion. That which we av no power to do direct- 
ive can never accompli- db; i liri cl m 
We resolution a n; ict a man of an irn- 

■ ■' ace, merelj 1 ecau e we may omit 
■ ' words of an impeachment. We 
regard e ubstance of thing , and nol thi n 
form. 

tin. Although a criminal intention be 
nol cli ged, in so many v ords, by this resolution, 
,! even withoul i'nr attendant cir- 
cun rly convey ; this meaning. The 

Pre I is ch'arj ed ■ ith hai ing "a imed up in 
hin author ty and p >wer no! confi i n d b] tl • 
Cons ; hi :\]i<\ laws, but in derogation of 1 1 

'• ed upon himself." Whal is the plain p il- 
pable i of this phrase connected with what 

and follows? Is it not "to arroj 
"to claim or seize unjustly.'; These are two of 
rhe first meanings of the word assume, according 



to the lexicographers. To assume upon oneself, is 
a mode of expression which is rarely taken in a 
good sense. As it is used here, I ask if any man 
of plain common understanding, after reading this 
resolution, would ever arrive at the conclusion that 
any Senator voted for it under the impression that 
the President was innocent of any improper inten- 
tion, and that he violated the Constitution from 
mere mistake, and from pure motives? The com- 
mon sense of mankind revolts at the idea. How 
can it be contended, for a single moment, that you 
can denounce the President as a man who had "as- 
sumed upon himself" the power of violating the 
laws and the Constitution of his country, and in 
the same breath declare that you had not the least 
intention to criminate him, and that your language 
was altogether inoffensive. The two propositions 
are manifestly inconsistent. 

But I go one step further. If we w s i : it ting as 
a court of impeachment, and the bare proposition 
. stablished to our satisfaction, that the Presi- 
'-■ : i had, in violation of the Constitution and the 
laws, wi hdrawn the public revenue of the country 
from the depository to whose charge Congress had 
committed it. and assumed the control over it him- 
self, we would be bound to convict him of a high 
official misdemeanor. Under such circumstances, 
we should be bound to infer a criminal intention 
from this illegal and unconstitutional act. Crimi- 
nal justice could never be administered, — society 
c >\ Id not exist, if the tribunals of the country should 
not attribute evil motives to illegal and unconstitu- 
tional conduct. Omniscience alone can examine 
the heart. When poor frail man is placed in the 
judgment seat, he must infer the intentions of the 
: ed from his actions. That "the tree is known 
by its fruits" is an axiom which we have derived 
from the fountain of all truth. Does a poor, na- 
ked, hungry wretch, at this inclement s< ion of the 
year, take from my pocket a single dollar; the law 
infers a criminal intent, and he must be convicted 
and punished as a thief, though he may have- been 
actuated by no other motive than that of sav- 
..s wife and his children from starvation. 
And shall a different rule be applied to the Presi- 
dent of the United States? Shallit be said of a man 
elevated to the highest station on earth, for his wis- 
dom, his integrity and Ins virtues, with all his con- 
stitutional P'h isers around him, when he violates 
the Cbnstii i< on of his country,- and usurps the con- 
trol over its entire t i, that he may successfol- 
ly defend himself by declaring that he had done 
this deed, without any criminal intention? No,sir:in 
i: h ; case, above all o - thect iminal intention 
must be inferred from the unconstituti : exercise 
of high anddangerous powers. Thi safety of the 
Republic demands that the President oi' the United 
States should nevei ■■< sid '• m ell bel ndsuchflim- 
-■'. pretexts. This resolution, therefore, although 
not have assumed th" form of an article of 
tmpeachmei < all the substance. 

It was my fate some years ago to have assisted 
as a managers '" behalf of the House of Repre- 
sentativeSj in the trial of an impeachment before 
this body. It tfo o 1 ecame my duty to examine all 
the precedi nts in such eases which had occurred 
under our Government, since the adoption of the 
Federal Constitution. On that occasion, I found 



one which lias a strong bearing upon this ques- 
tion. I refer to the case of Judge Pickering. He 
was tried and condemned by the Senate upon all 
the four articles exhibited against him; although 
the three first contained no other charge than that 
of making decisions contrary to law, in a cause in- 
volving a mere question of property, and then re- 
fusing to grant the party injured an appeal from his 
decision, to which he was entitled. From the clear 
violation of law in this case, the Senate must have 
inferred an impure and improper motive. 

If any thing further were wanting to prove that 
the resolution of the Senate contained a criminal 
and impeachable charge against the President, it 
might be demonstrated from all the circumstances 
attending the transaction. Whilst this resolution 
was in progress through the Senate, the. Bank 
of the United States was employed in pro- 
ducing panic and pressure throughout the land. 
Much actual suffering was experienced by the 
people; and where that did not exist, they 
dreaded unknown and awful calamities. Con- 
fidence between man and man was at an end. 
There was a fearful pause in the business of the 
country. We Mere then engaged in the most vio- 
lent parly conflict recorded in our annals. To 
use the language of the Senator from Kentucky, 
we were in the midst of a revolution. On the one 
contended that the power over the purse 
of the nation had been ursurped by the President: 
that in his own person he had united this pqwei 
with that of the sword, and that the liberties of the 
people w.-re gone, unless he could be arrested in 
his mad career. On the other hand, the friends of 
the President maintained that the removal of the 
deposit' from the Bank of the United States was 
an act of stern justice to the people; that ; t was 
strictly legal and constitutional; that he was im- 
pelled to it by the highest and purest principles of 
patriotism; and that it was the only means of pros- 
trating an institution which threatened the destruc- 
tion of our dearest rights and liberties. During 
tin'- t [ict public indignation was aroused 

to such a degree, that the President received a great 
numb. : i tnonymous lettet , Ihreateniri ; him 

on unless lie should restore the de- 
posites 

It \ - the pendency of this conflict 

througl country, that the Senator I 

et proj - i : : 'i ■ 26lh I '; cen ber, 
1-:'':. to pr< senl his condemn,: olution to the 

Senate. AjuI : ; re, sir, permit me to say that I do 
not b i was any co upl connection be- 

i upon tie 1 - floor and the Bank of 
the United States. But it was at this inauspic 
momen that the 

wasil uppos ted bj the Senator from Kentucky! He 

in iii" 1 v :'' ady comn i i- 

ced. He told us that by the 3d of March, 1837, 

if the pro; i i on i uld continue, 

there would be scarcely a ve tig ngofthe 

Government p.n.d policv ai thi . had i risted 
prior to the 3d Match, 1829. ' at in a h 
years a little more than thai \\ hich \ 
to establish our liberties, the Government would lie 
transf i i an elective monarchy — the worst 

of all forms of govertmSent. He compared the 
measure adopted by General Jackson with the con- 



duct of the usurping Crcsar, who, after he had over- 
run Italy in sixty days, and conquered the liberties 
of his native country, terrified the Tribune Metel- 
hts, who guarded the treasury of the Roman peo- 
ple, and seized it by open force. He declared that 
the President had proclaimed an open, palpable, 
and daring usurpation. He concluded by assert- 
ing that the premonitory symptoms of despotism 
were upon us; and if Congress did not apply an in- 
stantaneous and effective remedy, the fatal collapse 
would soon come on, and we should die — ignobly 
die! base, mean, and abject slaves, the scorn and 
contempt of mankind, unpitied, unwept, and un- 
mourned. What a spectacle Mas then presented in 
this chamber! We are told, in the reports of the 
day, that, when he took his seat, there was repeated 
and loud applause in the galleries. This, it will be 
remembered, was the introductory speech of the 
Senator. In my opinion, it was one of the ablest 
and most eloquent of all his able and eloquent 
speeches. He was then riding upon the whirlwind 
and directing the storm. At the time I read it, for 
I was not then in the Senate, it reminded me of 
the able, the vindictive, and the eloquent appea 
of Mr. Burke before the House of Lords, on the 
impeachment of Warren Hastings, in which he de- 
nounced that Governor General as the ravager and 
oppressor of India, and the scourge of the millions 
whs had been placed under his authority. 

And yet, we are now told that this resolution did 
not intend to impute any criminal motive to the 
President. That he was a good old man, though 
not a good constitutional lawyer: and that he knew 
better how to wield the sword than to construe the 
Constitution. 

[Mr. Clay here rose to explain. He said, "I 
never have said and never will say, that personally 
I acquitted the President of any improper intention. 
I lament that I cannot say it. But what I did say, 
was that the act of the Senate of 1834 is free from 
the imputation of any crimnal motives."] 

Sir, said Mr. B. this avowal is in character with 
the frank and manly nature of the Senator from 
Ken lucky. It is no more than what I expected 
from him. The imputation of any improper mo- 
tive to the President has been again and again dis- 
claimed by other Senators upon this floor. The 
!i ftator from Kentucky has now boldly come out 
in his true colors, and avows the principles which 
he held at the time. He acknowledges that he did 
not acquil the President from improper intentions. 
when charging him with a violation of the G 
tution of bis country. 

This trial of the President before th< Senate, con- 
tinued for three months. [During this whole period, 
instead of the evidence which a judicial tribunal 
ought to receive, exciting memorials, signed by 
vast numbers of the people, and well calculated to 
inflame the passions of Ins judges, were daily pour- 
ing in upon the Senate. He was denounced upon 
tins floor i>\ every ddious epithel which belongs to 
tyrants. Finally, the ob ixiou resolution was 
adopted by the vote of the Senate, on the 28th day 
of March,' L834. kfti i th ! exposition which 1 have 
made, can any impartial imiid doubt but that this 

, n m intended tdoharge against the President 
a wilful and' daring violation of the Constitution 
and the laws? I think not. 



8 



The Senator from Kentucky has argued, with 
his usual power, that the functions of the Senate, 
acting in a legislative capacity, are not to be re- 
stricted, because it is possible that the same ques- 
tion, in another form, may come before us judi- 
cially. I concur in the truth and justice of this po- 
sition. We must perform our legislative duties; 
and if, in the investigation of facts, having legi la- 
tion distinctly in view, we should incidentally be led 
to the investigation of criminal charges, it is a ne- 
cessity imposed upon us by our condition, from 
which we cannot escape; It results from the vary- 
ing nature of our duties, and not from our own 
will. 1 admit that it would be difficult to mark the 
precise line which separate-: our legislatn i ffpln > ax 
judicial functions. I shall not attempt if. In 
cases, from necessity, they are, in some degree, in- 
termingled. The present resolution, however, 
stands far in advance of this line. It is placed in 
Idi ef, and is clear of all such difficulties. It 
is a mere naked resolution of censured ll 
olelt to the pastconduct of the President, and a - 
demhs it' in the strongest terms, without even pro- 
posing any act of legislation by which the <-\ i] 
be remedied hereafter. It was judgmenl 
the past alone; tot prevention for the future. Nay, 
more: the resolution is so vague andgeneral in its 
th til is impossible to ascertain from its face 
of the President's condemnation. The 
ve resolved that the Executive "h; 
1 upon himself authority am! power n I 
ferred by the Constitution and laws, but in dero° 
tion of both." VVhal is the spi cification under this 
charge] Why, that he has acted thus, " in t] I 
Executive proa ; d i in relation to the publicr 
nue." What E ecutive proceeding ? The n 
leaves us entirely in the dark upon this subject. 

:. tion spring from such a resolu ii d ' 
it is impoi - ble. None such was e\ . r attempted. 
[fthe resolution had preserved its original | . 

I ii had condemned the President for 
dismissing one Secretary of the Treasury because 
he would n ■; remove the deposites, and f 

pi in i lis iv cessor to effect this purpose, h 

it have contended that the <-\ il 

was di nctij pointed out; and, although no 
ed, the remedy might bi 

I !ul ii" has dept ived himself ei 

this i ument. He has left us upon an 

: l\ . h ithout ch mi or o 

, ■■■• ding in r< I itioii 

" i i phf ise of the most general and 
Evei Senator who vol 
favor of this resolution, may haw acti d 
[iff pri . To procure its passage, i - 

thing n ore - necessan than that 

u in the conclusion that tl e Pr< 
had ■. :( lonstitution and the lav i i ime 

one i othi r < f his numerous acts in relation to 
ublic revet e. The \ iews oj Senators a n 
stituting the majority may have varied from each 
other to any conceivable extent; and ye\ they mav 
have united in the final vote. That this was the 
fact in a considerable extent, I have always under 1 
L tl is utterly impossible, either that such a 
coul i ever have been intended to be- 
come the basis of legislation, or that legislative 



action could have ever sprung from such a source. 

I flatter myself, then, I have succeeded in prov- 
ing that this resolution charged the President with a 
high official misdemeanor, wholly disconnected 
from legislation, which, if true, ought to have 
subjected him to impeachment. 

This brings me directly to the question, had the 
S< nate any power, under the Constitution, to adopt 
such a resolution? In other words, can the Senate 
condemn a public officer by a simple resolution, 
for an offence which would subject him to an im- 
peachment? To state the proposition, is to answer 
this question in the negative. Dreadful would be 
the consequence^ if we possess and should exercise 
such a power. 

This body is invested with high and responsible 
powers of a legislative, an executive, and a judicial 
character. No 'person can enter it until he has at- 
tained a mature age. Our term of service is longer 
than that of any oilier elective functionary. If Se- 
nators will have it so, it is the most aristocratic 
branch of our Government. For what purpose did 
the framers of the Constitution confer upon it these 
varied and important powers, and this long tenure 
of office? The answer is plain. It was placed in 
ecure and elevated position that it might be 
1 the storms of faction which so ofti n iiiflame 
the passions of men. It never was intended to be 
■ a ai <■ ■ for political gladiators. Until the second 
- ission of the third Congress, the Senate always sat 
with closed doors, except in the single instance when 
the eligibility of Mr. Gallatin to a seal in the body 
was the subject of discussion. Of this particular 
practice, however, I cannot approve. I merely 
state it, to show the intention of those who formed 
Constitution, [was informed by one of the 
eminent statesmen and Senators which this 
country has ever produced, now n le late 

Mr. King,) that for some years alar the Federal 
Government commenced its operation, the debates 
of the - i ibled conversant o r than 

ties, and that it originated but few legislative 
measures. Senators were then cr rthan 

authors in legislation. Whether its gain in elo- 
quence, since it has become a popul i ibly, and 
since the sound of thundering applai : has been 
heard in our galleries at the deni of the 
• '!■ sident, has been an equivalent for its less in true 

;nil , may well be doubted. To give this body its 
just influence with the peopl o preserve 

. fre v i possible from I Liscus- 

sions. In the performance of < ure - ,, 

fication of treaties, and in Ihi tation of 

lations, the Constitution ! I us w ith 

the Executive. The efficient and successful ad- 
rat on of the Government then ore requires 
that we should move on together in as much har- 
may be consistent with the independent 
i i erci: e of our respect^ e functions. 

lint above all, we should be the mo ;l i aulious in 
guarding our judicial charai i suspicion. 

Wet onstitute the high court of im] cl nt of 

this nation, before which every officer of the Go- 
vernment may be arraigned. To this tribunal is 
committed the character of men whose character is 
, I arer to them than their lives. We should be 
the rock standing in the midst of the ocean, for the 



purpose of affording a shelter to the faithful officer! 
from unjust persecution, against which the bil- 
lows might dash themselves in vain. Whilst \\< 
are a terror to evil doers, we should be a praise to 
those who do well. We sliould never voluntarily 
I" rf rm any act which might prejudice our judg- 
ment, or render us suspected us a judicial tribunal. 
More especially, when the President of the U. states 
is arraigned at the bar of public opinion for of- 
fences which might subject him to an impeachment, 
we should remain not only chaste hut unsuspected. 
Better, infinitely better, would it be foi us not. to 
manii'est our feeling, even in a case in which we 
were morally certain ihe House of Representatives 
would not prefer before us articles of impeai hmi at, 
than to reach the object of our disapprol ation by a 
usurpation of their rights. It is true that when the 
Senate passed the EBGOlntioD condemning the Presi- 
dent, a majority &» t&c Hoose were of a diffi rent 
opinion. But the next elections might have changed 
that majority into a minority. The House might 
then have voted articles of impeachment against 
the President. Under such circumstances, I pray 
you to consider in what a condition the Senate 
would have been placed. They had ahead . 
judged the case. They had already convicted the 
President, and denounced him to the world as a 
violator of the Constitution. In criminal prosecu- 
cutions, even against the greatest malefactor, if a 
juror has prejudged the cause, he cannot entei the 
jury box. The Senate had rendered itself wholly 
incompetent, in this case, to perform its highest ju- 
dicial functions. The trial of the President, had. 
articles of impeachment been preferred ag; 
him, would have been but a solemn mockery of 
justice. 

T! Constitution of the United States has . 
folly provided against such an enormous evil, by 
declaring that "the House of Representatives 
ha. i the ole power of impeachment," and '-the 
Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeach- 
ments." Until the accused is brought before a by 
the House, it is a manifesl violation of our -< le 
duty to i !' him by a resolution. 

If a court of criminal jurisdiction, without any 
indictment having been found by a grand jury, 
without havinggiven the defendant noti< i 
without having afforded him an o nity of 

the w itnesses ag tinsl him, and 
makin; nee. should resolve thai he was 

guilty of a high crime, and place Up- convict 
upon then records, all mankind w nld exclaim 
againsl ■ i a ■ e a id unconstitutionality of the 
act. \". herein consists the difference bet' > i thi 
case and the condemnation of the President? In 
nothing, except that such a conviction by the £ 
nate. on account of its exalted cl a act 
with ten;. iid force upon its object. I have often 
been i : . notwithstanding the e? tended and 

well di served popularity of General Jackson, that 
the moral influence of this condemnation b 
Senate ha I hed him. With what tre i 

dous efl tcl : hi this assumed powei of the Senate 
be used to blast the reputation of anj man 
might fall under its displeasure! The precedenl is 
extremely dangerous; and the American people 
have wisely determined to blot it out for ever. 

It is painful to reflect what might have been the 



condition of the country, if a( the inauspicious mo- 
ment 1 of the. passage of the resolution against the 
President, its interelts and its honor had rendered 
it necessary I " ;i > ,n a foreign war. The fear- 
ful consequences oPsuch a condition, at such a mo- 
ment, must strike ev< ry mind. Would the Senate 
then have confided to the President tss'ary 

power to defend the country? Where could the 
sinews of war have been found? In what condition 
was this body, at that moment, to act upon an im- 
portant treaty negotiated bv the Presid tnt, or upon 
any of his nominations? But I forbear to enlarge 
upon this topic. 

I have now arrived at the last point in this dis- 
cussion'. Do the Senate possess the power,. under 
the Constitution, of expunging the resolution 1 of 
Ma, - , 1834, from their journals, in the manhei 
proposed by the Senator from Missouri.' (Mr. Ben- 
ton.) I cheerfully admit we must show that this 
is not contrary to the Constitution; for we can never 
r, dress one violation of that instrument by commit- 
ting another. Before I proceed to this branch of 
the subject, 1 shall put myself right, by a brief his- 
torical reminiscence. 1 entered the Senate in De- 
cember, 1834, fresh from theranksoftl s_ people, 
without the slightest feeling of hostility against any 
Senator on this floor. [• then thought thai here- 
ion of the Senator from Mi ouri t as too 
sev< re m propositi": to expunge. Althcnj h I was 
anxious to record, in strong terms, my entire dis- 
approbation of the resolution of March, 1834, yet 
I was willing to accomplish this object without 
doing more violence to the feelings of mj associates 
on this floor, than was absolutely ne6essary to jus- 
tify the President. Actuated by these tnendly mo- 
tive,, I exerted all mv tittle influence with the 
Senator from Missouri, to induce him to tbandon 
ord expunge, and substitute some others in its 
place. I knew that this word wi ledrngl) 

obnoxious to the Senators who had v b d for the 
former resolution. Other fn-i" ; o '■ al o ex- 
erted their influence; and al length hi ki idly teel- 
m*s prevailed, and he consented to ' «n that 

word, although it was peculiarly dear I va\ 

speak from my own know dge. " Lll which I 
saw and part of which ! was." 

The resolution of the Senator fr m njssoim 
came before th Sen ite on the 3d el ■■ rch, ] ^ A -' 
Under it the resolution of V. i ' ? s '''"'" 

deredtobe expunged from the journal," tor rea- 

m appearing on its face, which I need not ruu- 

merate. The Senator from Tennessee, (Mr. 

White,) moved to amend then soluto n ol thebena- 

om Missouri, by striking oul the ordei to ex- 

tvith the reasons for it, and ' iheir 

tead the words, "rescinded, revi i e I, repeated, 

leclared to be null and void." S me difl er- 

en< ■ of opinion then an e a m '" "' 

as to the word- which houldtoe 

uted in place of the order to ex] 

the purpose of leaving this qu< stion perfectly open, 

von sir, (Mr. King, of Alabama n ' the < hair,) 

i moved to amend th i inal i ■ ' : ■ Mr. 

Benton, by striking out the word-, ' ordered to be 
expnnged'from the journal of the Sen I ■•"' This 
motion prevailed, on the ayes and noi s, by 
of 39 to 7; and amongst the ayes, the name ol toe 
Senator from Missouri is recorded. The resolu- 



1 



tion was thus left a blank, in its most essential fea- 
ture, read}' to be filled up as the Senate might di- 
rect. The era of good feeling, in regard to this 
subject, had commenced. It was nipped in the bud, 
however, by the Senator from Massachusetts, (Mr. 
Webster.) Whilst the resolution was still in blank, 
he rose in his place, and proclaimed the triumph of 
the Constitution, by the vote to strike out the word 
expunge, and then moved to lay the resolution on the 
table, declaring that he would neither withdraw his 
morion fi ir friend nor foe. This motion precluded all 
amendment and all debate. It pan-ailed by a par- 
ty vote ; and thus we were left with our resolution 
a blank. Such was the manner in which the Sen- 
ators in opposition received our advances of cour- 
tesy and kindness, in the moment of their strength 
and our weakness. Had the Senator from Massa- 
chusetts suffered us to proceed but for five minutes, 
"we should have filled up the blank in the resolu- 
tion. It would then have assumed a distinct form, 
and they would never afterwards have heard of 
the word expunge. We should have been content 
with the words "rescinded, reversed, repealed, and 
declared to be null and void.'' But the conduct of 
the Senator from Massachusetts on that occasion, 
and thai of the party with which he acted, roused 
the indignation of every friend of the administra- 
tion on this floor. We then determined that the 
word expunge should never again be surrendered. 

The Senator from Kentucky has introduced a 
precedent from the proceedings of the House of 
Representatives of Pennsylvania, for the purpose 
of proving that we have no right to adopi this reso- 
lution. To this I can have no possible objection. 
But I can tell the SemUor, if I were convinced that 
I had voted wrong, when comparatively a boy, 
more than twenty years ago, the fear of being termed 
inconsistent would not now deter me from voting 
right upon the same question. I do not, howi \ i r, 
repent of my vote upon that occasion. I would 
now vote in the same manner, under similar cir- 
cumstances. I should not vote to expunge, under 
any circumstances, any proceeding from the jour- 
nals by obliterating the record. If I do not prove, 
before I take my seat, that the case in the Le\ 
in re of Pennsylvania was essentially different from 
that now before the Senate, I shall agree to be pro- 
claimed inconsistent and time-sen tng. 

It was my settled conviction at the commence- 
ment of the last session of Congress, that the Senate 
had no power to obliterate their journal. This was 
shaken, but not removed, by the argument of the 
Senator from Louisiana, (Mr. Porter,) who confess- 
edly made the ablest speech on the other side of the 
question. The Constitution declares that "each 
House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and 
from time to time publish the same, excepting Mich 
parts as may in their judgment require secrecy " 
What was the position which thai Senator then at- 
tempted to maintain? In order to prove that we ha 
no power to obliterate or destro} our journals he 
thought ii necessary to contend thai the word "keep" 
as used in the Constitution, means both to record 
and to preserve. Tin's appeared to me to bra mere 
begging of the question. 

I shall attempt no definition of the word "keep." 
At least since the days of Plato, we know that d - 
finitions have been dangerous. Yet I think that the 



meaning of this word, as applied to the subject 
matter, is so plain that he who runs may read. If 
I direct my agent to keep a journal of his proceed- 
ings, and publish the same, my palpable meaning is, 
that he shall write these proceedings down, from day'to 
day, and publish what he has written for general in- 
formation. After he has obeyed my commands, after 
he has kept his journal, and published it to the world, 
he has executed the essential part of the trust confided 
to him. What becomes of this original manuscript 
journal afterwards, is a matter of total indifference. 
So in regard to the manuscript journals of either 
House of Congress: after more than a thousand 
copies have been printed, and published, and dis- 
tributed over the Union, it is a matter ©f not the 
least importance what disposition may be made 
of them. They have answered their purpose, and, 
in any practical view, become useless. If they 
were burnt, or otherwise destroyed, it would not be 
an event of the slightest public consequence. Such 
indifference has prevailed upon this subject, that 
these journals have been considered, in the House 
of Representatives, as so much waste paper, anil, 
during a period of thirty-four years after the or- 
ganization of the Government, they were actually 
destroyed. (Vide the Appendix.) From this cir- '. 
cumstance, no public or private inconvenience has 
been or ever can be sustained; because our printed 
journals are received in evidence in all courts of 
justice in the same manner as if the originals were 
produced. 

The Senator from Louisiana has discovered 
that to " keep" means both " to record" and " to 
psrserve." But can you give this, or any other 
word in the English language, two distinct and in- 
dependent meanings at the same time, as applied 
to the same subject? I think not. From the im- 
perfection of human language, from the impossi- 
bility of having appropriate word- to express every 
idea, the same word, as applied to different sub- . 
jects, has a variety of significations. As applied 
to any one subject, it cannot, at the same time, 
<•< iivcv two distinct meanings. In the Constitu- 
tion it must mean either " to write down," or " to 
preserve." It cannot have both significations. Let 
Senators, then, take their choice. If it signifies 
" to write down," as it unquestionably does, what 
becomes of the constitutional injunction to pre- 
serve? The truth is, that the Constitution has not 
provided what shall be done with the manuscript 
journal, after it has served the purposes for which 
it was called into existence. When it has been 
published to the people of the United States, 
for whose use it was ordered to be kept; after it has 
thus been perpetuated, and they have been furnish- 
ed with the means of judging of the public conduct 
of their public servants, it ceases to be an object of 
the least importance. Whether it be thrown into 
the garret of the Capitol with other useless lum- 
ber, or be destroyed, is a matter of no public inte- 
rest. It has probably never once been referred to 
in the historj of our Government. If it should ever 
be determini i '■■ be a violation of the Constitution 
to obliterate or destroy this manuscript journal, it 
must lie upon different principles from those which 
have be. n urgi in this debate. My own impres- 
sion is, that as the framers of the Constitution have 
directed us to keep a journal, a constructive duty 



11 



may be implied from this command, which would 
forbid us to obliterate or destroy it. Under this im- 
pression, I should vote, as I did twenty years ago, 
in the Legislature of Pennsylvania, against any 
proposition actually to expunge any part of the 
journal. But waiving tins unprofitable discussion, 
let u> proceed to the real point in controversy. 

Is any such proceeding as that of actually expung- 
ing the journal, proposed by the resolution of the 
Senator from Missouri? I answer, no such thing. 
If the Constitution had, in express terms, directed 
as to record and to preserve a journal of our pro- 
ceedings, there is nothing in the resolution now 
before us which would be inconsistent with such a 
provision. 

Is iiii- drawing of a black line around the resolu- 
tion of the Senate of March, 1834, to obliterate or 
to deface it? On the contrary, is it not to render it 
more conspicuous, — to place it in bold relief, — to 
give it a prominence in the public view, beyond 
any other proceeding of this body, in past, and I 
trust, in all future time. If the argument of Sena- 
tors Were, not that we have no power to obliterate; 
but that the Senate possessed no power to render 
one portion of the journal more conspicuous than 
another, it would have had much greater force. 
Why, sir, by means of this very proceeding, that 
portion of our journal upon which it operates will 
be rescued from a slumber which would otherwise 
have been eternal, and, fac-similes of the original 
resolution, withoul a word or a letter defaced, will 
be circulated over the whole Union. 

But, sir, this resolution also directs that across the 
face of the condemnatory resolution there shall be 
written by the Secretary, " Expunged by order of 

the Senate this day of , in the year of 

our Lord 1837." 

Will tiiis obliterate any part of the original reso- 
lution? [f it does, the duty of the Secretary will be 
performed in a very bungling manner. No such 
thing is intended. It would he easy to remove 
every scruple from every mind upon this subject, by 
amending the resolution of the Senator from Mis- 
souri, so as to direct the Secretary to perform his 
d " in such a manner as nol to obliterate any part 
condemnatory resolution. Such a directii n, 
howev r, appears to me to be wholly unnecessary. 
The nature of the whole proceeding is very plain. 
We now adopt a resolution, expressing our 
m of the orij inal resolution; and 
for this purpose we use the word "< spunged," as the 
strong l term hich we can apply. We then di- 
rect our Secretary to draw black lines around it, 
ice such a reference to our proceedings of 
this day upon its face, thai in all time to come, 
whoever may inspect this portion of our journal, 
will bi I : at once to the record of its condem- 

nation. What lawvr ha- not observed upon the 
margii Igmenl docket, il the oi Iginal judg- 

meD beei ed to a tiperiot court, and 

then ' ■ ■■ minute of such r ersall [n our 

the statutes, have we nol all note I the 
I of any of them, which may h: i e taken place 
at a ubsequenl period? Who evei heard. i 
one case or in the other, thai this was obliterating 
oi desl r< j ing the record, or the boo! ' So in this 
case, we make a mere reference to our future pro- 
ceeding upon the face of the resolution, instead of 



the margin. Suppose we should only repealt he 
obnoxious resolution, and direct such a reference U» 
be made upon its face? Would any Senator con- 
tend that this would be an obliteration of the 
journal? 

But it has been contended that the word expunge 
is not the appropriate word; and we have wrested it 
from its true signification, in applying it to the pre- 
sent case. Even if this allegation were correct, the 
answer would be at hand. You might then convict 
us of bad taste, but not of a violation of the Con- 
stitution. On the face of the resolution we have 
stated distinctly what we mean. We have directed 
the Secretary in what manner he shall understand 
it, and we have excluded the idea that it is our in- 
tention to obliterate or to destroy the journal. 

But I shall contend that the word expunge is the 
appropriate word, and that there is not another in 
the English language so precisely adapted to con- 
vey our meaning. I shall show, from the highest 
literary and parliamentary authorities, that this 
word has acquired a signification entirely distinct 
from that of actual obliteration. Let me proceed 
immediately to this task. After citing my au- 
thorities, I shall proceed with the argument. First, 
then, for those of a literary character. I read from 
Crabbe's Synonymes, page 140; and every Senator 
will admit that this is a work of established repu- 
tation. In speaking of the use of the word ex- 
punge, the author says: "When the contents of a 
book are in part rejected, they are aptly described 
as being expunged; in this manner die free-thinking 
sects expunge every thing from the Bible which 
does not suit their purpose, or they expunge from 
their creed what does not humor their passions." 
The idea that an actual obliteration was intended 
in these cases would be manifestly absurd. In the 
same page there is a quotation from Mr. Burke to 
illustrate the meaning of this word. "I believe," 
says he, "that any person who was of age to take 
a part in public concerns forty years ago (if the 
intermediate space were expunged from his memo- 
ry) could hardly credit his senses when he should 
hear that an army of two hundred thousand men 
was kept up in this island." I shall now cite Mr. 
Jefferson as a literary authority. He has often 
been referred to on this floor as a standard in poli- 
tics. For this high authority, I am indebted to my 
friend from Louisiana (Mr. Nicholas.) In the 
original draft of the declaration oi' independence, 
he uses the word expunge in the following manner: 
"Such has been the patient sufferance of these 

coli s; and such is now the necessity which con- 

them to expunge their former systems oi 
Government." Although the word alter was after- 
wards substituted for expunge, I presume upon the 
ground thai this was too strong i term,yetthe 
ij e does not detract from the lil rai athority 
precedent. — Jefferson's Correspondence, >S*c. 1st 
volume, page 17. 

I presume that I have shown that the word ex- 
punge has acquired a distinct metaphorical mean- 
ing in our literature, which excludes the idea of 
, | ; obliteration. If I should procee ' one step 
.., and prove thai in legislative proeee bugs it 
has acquired the very same signification, I shall 
then have fully established nvj position. For this 
purpose I cite, first, " the Secret Proceedings and 



12 



debates of the Federal Convention." In page 118, 
we find the following entries: " On motion to ex- 
punge the clai the qualification as to age, it 
was carried — ten States against one." Again: "On 
the clause respecting the ineligibility to any other 
office oved that the words ' by any parti- 
cular State,' be expunged — four States for, five 



the journal. If more authorities were -wanting, I 
might refer to the Legislature of Virginia. The 
present expunging resolution is in exact conformity 
with their instructions to th r lators. As a 
matter of taste, I cannot say that I much admire 
tin ir plan, though I entertain no doubt but that it 
is perfectly constitutional. That State is highly 



against,. and two divided." So page 119. " The literary; and I think 1 have established 'hat their 



last blank was filled up with one year, and carried 
— eij hi aye.-:, two noes, one divided." 

I inekney moved to expunge the cl 
agreed to, nem. con. Again: " Mr. Butler moved 
to expunge the clause of' the stipends — lost, seven 
against, three fur, one divided." Again, in pas:e 



lature, when they used the word expunge, 
without intending thereby to effect an actual oblite- 
ration of the journal, justly a I the mean- 
ing of the language whieh they 

The word expunge is, in my opinii Q, the only one 
which we could have used, clearly and forciblj to 



157, " Mr. Pinckney moved that that- ccomplish our purpose. Even if it had not been 

clans;? which disqualifies a person from h ;tioned by practice as a parliamentary word, we 

-office in the State In expunged, because the first and 1 ought ourselves to ha^ e first established th 



bested :• m a State may thereby I 

of a seat in the national council." 

" ' ' '■ ' >n pul to strike out the words moved for 
and carried— eight ayes, three noes." 

It will : perceived that in the proceedings 

of the very convention which formed the Constitu- 
tion und :r which we arc now governed, the 
expung often usedin its figurative sense. It 

will c t; [inly not be asserted, or even intimal : . I 
any Senator here, that when these moti 
punge | .. led, the words of the original draft of 
the Ci i were actually obliteral I 

f^ced. I ming is palpable. These prov 

were : ely.i ually blotted 



It suits the case precisely. If you rescind, 

repeal a resolution; you thei mil that it ontee 

had some constitutional or legal authority. [J 
declare it to have been null and void from the be- 
ginning; this is but the expression of your i •■ ■ - 
ion that such was the fact. This word expunge 
on the resolution itself. It at once goes to 
- origin, and destroys its legal existence as if it had 
been. It does not men.lv kill, but it annihi- 

Parliamentary practii : has ch aning 

ral other words from t! tifi- 

i, in a similar manner with thatof the word 

expunge. The original signification of the word 



But i shall now prodxice a pr< cedent pi ind - 'li cut i if. ' Usage has made it mean, 

point, [i mts itself in the proceed igs of tl reference to a law or resolution, to 

Senateofj\l i tts, and refet d ; t. We every day hear m< 

: bod Lo] bi on the 15th da; of out." What is -the literal meaning of this expres 

June,! 1 .3, in relation to the capture of 1 " i The question may be best-answered by ask- 

': denouncing the late war, and tij aother. If I were to request you strike oul 



daring that it was not becoming hi a moral 
rejigii . | ople, lo express any approl | 
militai i naval exploits b bich v ere iol imme- 
diate!] i with the defence of i : 



a line from your letter, and you were nriUin 
comply with my request, what would be youi n- 
You would run your -pen through it imme- 
. You would literally strike it out. Sfel 



irds, a succeediii ite of [what use do we make of this phrase every day in 

tt adi pted the follow in ; tiye proceeding I 

" Ret '■::!. That the aforesaid resolve i a section from a bill and il prevails, 

of June, A. D. 1813, and the pn ■ : — ; the printed copy of il in 



me ther . /» , and the same, are hereby 
from tl ■ i th S n ■>.-." 

It is -■ ' ' l< nl that, in this case, not th ' 
intent | of lefai Lng the old maun 

journ "expunge" was us( d in its 

ication, just as it is in th< 
before spress the stronge n Lion of 

the fi roceed ag. Thai proceeeding ■ 

be ex , !i\ fora of the 

resplul tid not by any actual 

There never was any actual obhleration of the 
journal. 

Ju< : , ,' th< hi h< ;1 English au 

ties, l works of celebrated authors and 

state- m the proa edings of 

bodies, is itnot e\ il the wi rd < cptti 

acquii , i tning, altogethei 

with any actual obliteration? 

All ili.it we have heard aboul di a id d •- 

stroying the journal are mere phantoms, which 
have been conjured up to terrif) the timid. We 
intend no such thing. We only mean, niosi strong- 
ly, to express our conviction that the condemnatory 
resolution ought never to have found a place on 



and aakes a note on th til has 

tricken out. The original he never toui 
then should not the word expunge, without 
ating the proceeding to whic cted, 

to di n as if it ii 
After all that has been ] think i need 

scarcely again recur to the Pennsylvan 
di at. it is evident from the who! i 

I an actual expunging of the . as in- 

• il had not alreadj beet 
collection whatever of the ciri . but 

I am under a perfect conviction, from th 

i ; mil, thai such was the nati i ise.-l 

now as 1 did then, after a 
in tv enty 5 eat >. Both my vote, and the 
n hich I sul 1 mad< npon ca- 

ll Mil\- proceeded upon this principle. The 
question arose in this manner, as il apj 

ural. On the 10th of February, 1816, 
Speaker infoimed the House that a co stitutional 
question .being involved in a decision by him yes- 

. , on ,1 motion to expunge certain ; 
from the journal, he was desirous of having 
opinion of the House on that decision," viz: "that 



13 



a majority can expunge from the journal proceed- 
ings in which the yeas and nays have not been 
called." Now, as no trace whatever appears upon 
the journal of the preceding day oi' the. motion to 
winch, the Speaker refers, it is highly probable, nay 
it is almos! certain, that the proceedings had been 
actually expunged before he asked the advice of 
the House. 

No man feels with more sensibility, the necessity 
which compels him to perform an unkind act to- 
wards his brother Senators than myself: but we 
have now arrived at that point when imperious 
duty demands that we should either adopt this ex- 
punging resolution or abandon it for ever. Already 
much precious time has been employed in its dis- 
cussion. The moment has arrived when we must 
act. Senators in the opposition console themselves 
With the belief that posterity will do them justice, 
should it 1 e denied to them by the present genera- 
tion. They place their own names in the one scale, 
and our- in the other, and Hatter themselves with 
tin hope that before that tribunal at least, their 
Weight wdl preponderate. For my own part, I am 
Willing to abide the issue. I am willing to be 
judged fur the vote which I shall give to-day not 
only by the present, but by future generations, 
should my obscure name ever be mentioned in af- 
ter limes. After th" passions and prejudices of the 
present moment shall have subsided, and the impar- 
tial historian shall come to record the proceedings of 
this day, he will say that the distinguished men who 
passed tie,- resolution condemning the President, 
Were urged on to the act by a desire to occupy the 
ligh places in the Government. That an ambition 
nolle in itself, but not wisely regulated, had ob- 
scured their judgment, and impelled them to the 
adoption of a measure unjust, illegal and uncon- 
stitutional. That in order to vindicate both the 
Constitution and tin; President, we were justified 
i;i passing this expunging resolution, and thus 
stamping the former proceeding with our strongest 
disapprobation. 

1 rejoice in the belief, that this promises to be 
on- of the last highly exciting questions of the 
present day. During the period of General Jack- 
Bon's civil administration, what ha.s he not done for 
the American people 1 During this period he has 
had more, difficult and dangerous questions to settle, 
both al home and abroad, — questions which aroused 
more mt nsely the passion., of men, — than any of 
bis pred ■cessors. They are now all happily ended, 
except the one which we shall this day bring to a 
Hose, 

•■ Indnllihe cloud? that lowered upon our houw 
In ihe He ■;> bosom n{ the oci a i bin .1 d ' 

The country now enjoys abundant prosper- 
ity at home, whilst it is respected and admired by 
foreign nations. Although the waves may ye bi 
ui some agitation from Ihe effect of the storms 
through which we have passed, yel I thud; [can 
p eivi the r tinbow of peai e extending ifc ;lf 
■ere n tent i ; ' Heaven. 

S ould di • ne tt administration pursue the 
course o.' policy with the present — motiid it dis- 
pells: equal justice to all portions and all interests 
of f;e Union, without sacrificing any — should ii 
be conducted with pro lena and with firmness, and 
I doubt not but that this will be the case — we shall 



hereafter enjoy comparative peace and quiet in our 
day. This will be the precious fruit of the en- 
ergy, the toils, and the wisdom of the pilot who has 
conducted us in safety through the storms of his 
tempestuous administration. 

1 am now prepared for the question. I shall 
vote for this resolution; but not cheerfully. I re- 
gret the necessity which exists for passing it; but I 
believe that imperious duty demands its adop- 
tion. If I know my own heart, 1 can truly say 
that I am not actuated by any desire to obtain a 
miserable, petty, personal triumph, either for my- 
self, or for the President of the United States, over 
my associates upon this floor. 

I am now ready to record my vote, and thus, in- 
die opprobrious language of Senators in. the op- 
position, to become one of the executioners of the 
condemnatory resolution. 



APPENDIX. 
Office, HotSE of Rep. U. S. April 6, HTIG. 

I entered this office a youth, under JohnBeckley, 
who was the first clerk of the House of Represen- 
tatives under the present Constitution of the United 
Stales, and who died in the year 1807. 

During the recess of Congress, he put me at 
what was termed " recording the journal" of the 
preceding session, which was to write it off from 
the printed copy into a large bound volume. I in- 
quired of him why it was that it was copied, when 
there were so many printed copies? He answered 
that the printed copies would probably, in time, 
disappear from use, &c. the large manuscript vo- 
lume would not. 

The ''rough journal," as it was then termed, and 
is still termed, being the origin il rough draft, read 
in the House on the morning after the day of which 
it narrates the proceedings, was not, and had not 
from the beginning, been preserved. I inquired' the 
reason, and was answered, that the printed copy was 
the official copy, as it was printed under the official 
order of the House; and as errors, which were 
sometimes discovered in the rough journal, were 
corrected in the proofs of the printed copy, the 
printed copy was the most correct, and that, there- 
fore, there was no use in lumbering the office with 
the "rough journal," after it had been printed. 

Two of Mr. Beckley's immediate successors in 
office, Mr. Magruder and Mr. Dougherty, viewed 
the matter as Mr. Beckley viewed it. I knowthe 
fact from having called their attention to the sub- 
ject. I often reflected upon the subject, and it ap- 
peared to me lo be proper that the " rough jour- 
nal"sh«uld be preserved, although I could net see 
any purpose whatever to be answered by doing so* 
I "in n com ersed « ith Ihe clei ks of the offii upon 
the subject; but a. we were only subordinates, the 
practice was nol changed till 1st session of the 
I8ih Congress, (1823-4 1 when I determined, 
ul con til ing my superior, tU:ii the "rough 

u ial" should no long*;i he thrown away, but be 
prei n ed and bound in 1 olumes; an ' i; - been 
regularl pre rved and bound since. 
With greal respect, I am, sir, 

Vot r ob -in al s< n mt. 

S. iXJRCEf. 
Col. Walter S. Franklin, 

Clerk Howe of Representatives, U. 8. 






- 




LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



011 896 359 3 



